Skip to main content

About your Search

20130117
20130125
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
policy and has worked in the pentagon under the obama administration and david frum, former speech writer for george w. bush and critter for us. right now, 40% of active duty are women. this could be hundreds of thousand of jobs suddenly would be open to women. am i right in saying this is hublgly significant? >> it's absolutely enormous. the one thing i would say though, the it's not that we don't have women in combat positions. we have women who are ineligible under the former policy, but there really isn't any front line in today's wars. fighting heroically in combat, women who have died in combat. this change just recognizes what's already a reality, frankly. >> david, please be blunt. i know what you have to say is, might offend some people, but this is important. why do you think women in combat is not a good idea? >> i think we need to stress, this is quite an abstract notion. the number of women who will speak and equally is likely to be quite low, but of those who do, i think there are three concerns. the first, the first is is that we are going to see as we have already seen, th
exchanges occurred after a republican senator ask why it took the obama administration so long to determine the assault was actually not the result of any spontaneous protest. here is secretary clinton's response to that. >> with all due respect, the fact is we had four dead americans. >> i understand. >> whether it was because after protest or because of guys out for a walk one night decided they would go kill some americans, what difference at this point does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. martha: that was the most heated moment of the proceedings yesterday. joined by wyoming republican senator john barrasso, who was there who also questioned senator clinton. secretary of state clinton yesterday. he is on the senate foreign relations committee. welcome, good to have you here. >> thank you, martha. martha: why you surprised by that reaction? >> i was because it really does make a difference. it makes a difference to the american people. i would imagine it makes a big difference to the press and o
indication president obama plans on not governing for the first two years of the administration. i think the ideas we saw come out, talk about gun violence prevention, comprehensive immigration reform, climate control, these are things that the american people want. we've been talking about for the last --. bill: but you don't even know if that can pass through even the democratic senate. >> right. >> no, sure but these are the issues we need to be talking about and we ned everyone at the table. these ideas have traditionally come, we found compromises from both parties and we do need to be able to come back to those again. it is unfortunate the last congress speaker boehner had his hands tied by very extreme parties of his party. i had real hopes that speaker boehner would be able to come back to the table and i actually still think he would be able to. bill: three days in, here we are, we are 72 hours warm. got to run, monica, quick last word. >> i could see why the left think ideas of limited government, fiscal responsibility and economic freedom are extreme but pure projection on the
still have yet to find a way to pin down any of the obama administration officials for any tangible wrongdoings. >> fran, do you think it was a waste of time? >> i do think it was a waste of time. and it was unfortunate, anderson. you've had on family members on your program and i imagine myself as a family member if i had lost somebody watching this. look, it was a waste of time to ask secretary clinton about the talking points given to ambassador susan rice. >> and that's what -- they seemed to spend a lot of time on talking points given to susan rice. >> right. and yet when ambassador -- when secretary clinton sort of loses her temper in the senate hearing and says what difference does it make whether this resulted from a protest or some guys who went out for a walk and decided to kill americans, the right comeback to that was it does matter. if you're telling us you want to solve the prorks you have blem, understand what caused that. >> let's play the moment. where she got mad at senator johnson. >> again, we were misled that there were protests and then something sprang out of
, to carry forward the obama administration's foreign policy and i urge his speedy confirmation. as we've heard from both the chairman and ranking member, as we just heard from senator warren, he will bring about a leadership that is ex am plear. he has acted as the young returning veteran from vietnam who appeared before this committee through the time that he served with such distinction as its chairman. he's been a valued partner to this administration and to me personally. he has fought for our diplomats and development experts. he understands the value of investing in america's global leadership. and as we work to implement the accountability review boards recommendations, he's committed to doing whatever it takes to prevent another attack and protect our people and posts around the world. now, working together we've achieved a great deal but the state department and usaid have a lot of unfinished business from afghanistan to proliferation to climate change and so much. we need to continue to ramp up economics as a tool for advancing america interests and jobs, pressing forward wi
. mrs. clinton, the state department, and the obama administration don't care about the truth for her to say what difference does it make. the difference, whether it was a disorganized mob or an assault on that compound, and whether or not the truth was told is of profound interest to the american people. >>brian: your former job was getting to the truth. people are focused on the fact that she lost her temper but they're not looking it the words she said. what difference does it make? the we don't know what happened still today. >> her losing her temper wasn't a lost temper. it was either planned or it was controlled. and it served, to use one of your phrases, a brush-back pitch. the republicans did not examine her with enough aggression, with enough professionalism. they should have zeroed in with follow-up questions. they should have cross-examined her as if she was on the witness stand. the democrats, as bill o'reilly said last night, not a single democrat asked a single question that made any sense or challenged her. >>brian: tell me what you think of this from senator mccain and
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)